users_stream

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only adds the keyset-pagination behavior. It does not disclose the default page size behavior (schema default 250), the absence of filters-allowed limits, or any rate/scale characteristics of 'streaming'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the pagination mechanism gets the emphasis. It is efficient, though it arguably spends its one sentence on mechanism rather than the more decision-relevant sibling distinction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and pagination but omits the return shape, page-size behavior, and how it relates to users_list. Adequate but not complete for an agent choosing between multiple user-list tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the cursor pass-through semantics. The description's generic 'with filtering options' adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all users') and adds the distinguishing mechanism ('cursor-based (keyset) pagination'), so the agent knows it's a list operation with keyed pagination. However, it never contrasts this with the sibling users_list, leaving the core 'why this instead of users_list?' question open.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is a strong sibling overlap (users_list) but the description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing between the two list tools. The cursor mention is a hint at scale but not an explicit condition for selecting this tool over the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.